[The Editors' Verdict] The Clash of Justice at Incheon Airport and Social Progress

[Asia Economy Reporter Shin Beom-su] The process in which the public becomes outraged over actions that are legal but considered unjust, the media takes interest, and the political sphere finds solutions is a sign that society is functioning properly. We must continuously investigate and discover justice in realities that laws and systems fail to fully capture, striving to bridge that gap in a progressive direction.

The controversy arising from the conversion of non-regular workers to regular employees at Incheon International Airport Corporation can be interpreted in this context. The social consensus to create a more stable employment environment is the result of efforts to approach a better, more just society. On the other hand, the awareness that such laws and systems do not adequately reflect justice in reality naturally emerges. At this point, it is easy to fall into the trap of debating which of the two values is more just, but such parallel lines lead us to exhausting arguments, and nothing can be gained from the ensuing extreme confrontations.

Many intellectuals criticize the claims of the company’s regular employees opposing the conversion of non-regular security guards to regular positions, as well as those of job seekers and many young people. They also present numerous arguments to prove that the justice they advocate is wrong. However, no one has the power or right to decisively overturn the justice accepted and established by a significant portion of society, even if it seems unfamiliar or awkward. Yet, the common sense that constructive discussion begins with acknowledging each other’s differences is not being well observed this time either.

It is somewhat fortunate that bridging the gap between two completely opposing positions is not impossible. As many other intellectuals diagnose, the problem is not the purpose of the laws and systems to create stable jobs itself, but whether justice is realized in the methods and procedures used to implement that goal.

We have now reached the point where the process of converting to regular employment, which has been carried out somewhat roughly, must be refined and evolved into a form that more members of society can accept. Is the simple method of instantly changing the employment conditions of a group of workers the only way? Can we not create a fair procedure or process that grants legitimacy to the new status while considering the dignity of the subjects? Is a systematic method of conversion that those about to enter employment can predict impossible? Putting such discussions aside and likening the conversion to free riding or a lottery, or condemning definitions of justice different from one’s own as selfishness or discrimination benefits no one.

Not all laws or systems are just. Justice in reality is not fully absorbed within laws and systems. The gap between the reality and the laws and systems’ view of what is just is both the starting point of social conflict and the driving force for progress. Facing that gap, we must free ourselves from the temptation to find reasons why my justice is correct and your justice is cowardly, trying to force each other into submission. We can create better jobs and develop more evolved laws and systems that balance various concepts of justice.

Forces that try to frame the current conflict as black and white or a binary choice hope for the complete abolition of laws and systems or the maintenance of the status quo without any concession. They use this as a tool or slogan for political strife, demanding that we take sides at either extreme. However, the vast majority of us gain nothing from forcibly reverting airport security guards to non-regular status or from harshly criticizing the youthful zeal of those who advocate unfamiliar concepts of justice.

Shin Beom-su, Head of Social Affairs Division